[Panzer04]

I think the crux of the matter is, as the author states: "even a positive-sum world contains winners and losers"

The core of the problem is that we don't want to trample the losers (lest those tools be used against us), but at the same time, someone is often going to come worse (from their perspective) from some very worthwhile changes. In some cases, it seems like we can just use money to compensate them, but inevitably it's going to be difficult to price that, or it'll get abused. I don't rightfully know how to address that.

It's easy enough to justify paying for compulsory acquisitions - but in more abstract circumstances it's unlikely we want to be paying existing homeowners to stop opposing removal of zoning regulations.

I don't know, its a complex topic. If one asked me I'd probably splash out a lot more money in direct compensation for aggrieved parties rather than the current status quo - it would not surprise me if people would accept even relatively token amounts relative to the theoretical benefits, given otherwise there's no difference to saying yes/no to them. Would be an interesting experiment.